The Dorries amendment will be a free vote - keep the pressure on

[WilsonFrickett]

Lots of press today saying that the govt has decided to vote against ND's ridiculous amendment. While this is good news, it will still be a free vote, with individual MPs able to vote as they please. If you were thinking about emailing your MP on this issue please still do so - the result isn't a foregone conclusion.

From the Guardian article:

...a combination of the unpredictable intake of new Tory MPs, split between social conservatives and modernisers, the number of Roman Catholic Labour MPs, and the high degree of nuance of the amendment make it extremely unclear which way the vote will go.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/31/downing-street-uturn-abortion-proposals

[Empusa]

I wasn't talking about what Victor was talking about. I was talking about your posts.

So you think that better counselling could result in fewer abortions?

[Empusa]

Well, I'm talking about both. Is that ok with you?

[bumbleymummy]

Victor
unless you think that the number of people who regret deciding against abortion and keep the baby outnumbers the number of women who regret their decision to have an abortion.

I was asking Josephine what she thought and she clearly understood it as a question because she answered it further down.

and you clearly aren't reading the posts properly because we were discussing the possibility of women being 'happier' even if they chose to have the abortion - Josephine was asking if I would be happy about that.

[bumbleymummy]

It's fine, but don't try to tell me that it 'isn't clear' that I was asking someone a question on that thread when I'm talking about this one.

[bumbleymummy]

Anyway, I've answered your question at the bottom of the last page empusa.

I'm off to have a nice evening with DH. Goodnight ladies.

[MyGoldfishIsEvil]

liberalconspiracy.org/2011/09/01/revealed-nadine-dorries-and-her-real-views-on-abortion/

Dorries' campaign is being, ahem, 'advised' by Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship, and he wants to 'chip, chip away at abortion rights, to reach the goal of a full ban on abortion.'

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/02/abortion-debate-dorries-campaign

Dorries is really foaming at the mouth this morning. Still, at least she's got the Daily Mail on side...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033505/Cameron-branded-gutless-Tory-MP-caving-Clegg-abortion.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[MyGoldfishIsEvil]

Still, you've got to hand it to her for sheer bare-faced lies.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/village-people-jo-creates-confusion-2348418.html

(scroll to bottom)

[MyGoldfishIsEvil]

And she's still carrying on with the 'what is so wrong with giving women independent advice' line, which is truly disingenuous when she has been outed as a campaign with backers from the Christian far-right pro-life groups.

It really worries me how these Christian far-right lobbying groups are slipping into UK politics via the back door, via MPs like Dorries.

She had very close links to Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Lawyers Christian fellowship, an anti-abortion and anti-Islamist lobby group, when she tried to reduce the limit to 20wks as well.

Chip, chip, chip....

[WilsonFrickett]

Oh BOAK at DC's 'genuine feel for women'. Boak boak boak! Could you patronise us just a little bit further....???


Still haven't heard back from my MP, will give him another wee push now.

[Empusa]

Glad Dorries is under pressure to reveal her financial backers. She wouldn't know independent/impartial if it came up and slapped her.

[kelly2000]

religious fundementalism really is slipping into British abortion rights, You get a few empty vessels yelling and screaming about how abortion does this and that, and then other MPs cannot be othered to do their own research so think "well i agree with abortion, but if that is true they have a point so I will vote how they say". Sod the fact that what they say is not true.
Abortion after 24 weeks is only allowed in the UK for serious medical reasons such as if the mother's health is at risk, yet fundementalism has grown to such an extent that anti-abortionists like to gloat how more and more medical students want to use their religion to prevent these abortions from being carried out i.e how more and more medical students are prepared to have their patients harmed in the name of their own religion. This is just discrimination against women, there is no other way to dress it up.

[WilsonFrickett]

Great response from my MP

Thank you for your email. It is still unclear what if any amendments will be called for debate this week. However, my intention is to vote against the proposals on abortion counselling proposed by Nadine Dorries and Frank Field, or any similar proposal.

Mark Lazarowicz
MP for Edinburgh North & Leith

[bumbleymummy]

Kelly, would you have doctors forced to perform abortions even if they don't agree with them? How ethical is that? What about their rights?

[WilsonFrickett]

No problem with doctors not performing abortions bumbley - it's hardly compulsory and indeed I imagine outsourcing much abortion provision to organisations like BPAS make it very easy for docs to not provide abortions if its against their conscience.

GPs not informing women of their position, and using their position to delay, confuse and make the process harder for women - is a scandal.

And medical students who presumably haven't set their specialisms and (I think) are expected to train in every branch of medicine who could therefore use their position to try to prevent abortions happening - as Kelly has alluded to - is another scandal. If a medical student has to perform abortions or counsel women who are seeking abortions as part of their training and they have strong views against abortion, this should be stated clearly and upfront and women should always have the option to talk to / be treated by someone else. And if that means it takes that student longer to finish their training, so be it.

[kelly2000]

No-one is forcing them to become doctors. It is morally wrong that someone who is prepared to put their patient's health at risk, should be put or put themselves in that position of power.
GPs should be made to tell patients before they registar that they are anti-abortionists. That way patients can decide not to registar there. If a doctor can refuse to refer someone for medical treatment based on their own non-medical beliefs, then patients have the right to not registar with that GP.
Why can a doctor pick and choose who they treat. If a doctor is anti-homosexual because of their religion do you think they should be able to refuse to give safe sex advice etc, because doctors are allowed to refuse people contraception, as are pharmacists. When we start allowing doctors and health care professionals to refuse treatment based on their own non-medical beliefs we are allowing discrimination of patients, and at the moment this discrimination is largely based on the patients sex and sexuality. If people have such strong beliefs that they are prepared not to treat people on the basis of their beliefs then they should not choose to become health care professionals.

[limitedperiodonly]

There were two things on R4 this morning that were really good.

The first is a John Humphrey's interview from Today. Today covered the subject yesterday with Sarah Montague and it was very poor.

Nadine Dorries was not challenged on clear lies about her claims of a conflict of interest and her continual suggestion that charities such as Marie Stopes and BPAS are making money out of abortion. BPAS, who did not contribute to the discussion, issued a statement that sounded like a complaint at the end of the show.

There'd obviously been a number of complaints because they revisited the subject this morning and the questioning was fair but more robust. The striking thing was that Humphries challenged dubious claims from the anti-abortion spokeswoman.

news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9582000/9582030.stm

I'll track down the other one between Jenni Murray, Suzanne Moore and Christina Odone in case anyone's interested.

[limitedperiodonly]

I can't get it to play again. But it was on Woman's Hour at about 10.30am today if anyone's interested.

Suzanne Moore made some great points: she said if there was a need for counselling it should be aimed not just at women choosing abortions but at teenagers who may be encouraged to give their babies up for adoption while ignorant of the implications for their own emotional well-being of a binding decision. That's not part of the Dorries/Field amendment.

Also she pointed out that Dorries and Field weren't fans of young single mothers and questioned whether the whole emphasis on 'saving' 60,000 babies a year wasn't aimed not at keeping babies with young working class single mothers on benefits but on supplying middle class childless couples with 'wombs for rent'.

She also raised the question of what might happen to any 'saved' babies who didn't fit the bill - but that was less explicit.

Like with all these debates I keep finding pro-choice people much more practical, imaginative and compassionate than their opponents who when given a tricky moral question that doesn't fit their anti-abortion sentiments don't want to answer it.

[aliceliddell]

Suzanne Moore also pointed out that Dorries amendment is to the bill which will privatise the NHS - Perfect 'distraction' to sacrifice women's rights in pursuit of profiteering privateers

[kelly2000]

None of the anti-abortionists I have heard ever give logical arguements. Their arguements rely on giving out false information to try to gain support. The most potent of these are that women are too stupid to decide to have an abortion. They can decide to have sex, decide to keep a pregnancy, but far too stupid to decide on their own to have an abortion.
Someone, Dorries I think, was complaining that the counselling abortion providers give is not proper counselling, but just a session to give information for informed consent. That sounds to me like she thinks counselling should be about talking a woman out of abortion and talking about fluffy babies, and baby clothes etc.

[JiltedJohnsJulie]

Have just emailed my MP, will wait to see what she says.

[MugglesandLuna]

Have had an email back from my (Labour) MP. He will be voting against the amendments.

[MyGoldfishIsEvil]

I listened to Woman's Hour - I was also particularly interested in the comments that this is serving as a distraction to a threat to the NHS. The bill has 1000 amendments to be debated in parliament - Dorries' amendment is allocated 90 mins. That's a lot. I'm sure there are more important bits to discuss - the privatisation of the NHS is pretty worrying to say the least!

The point about more counselling for women who miscarry was really well-made as well. If Dorries really cared for women she'd be campaigning on that, but she's not - she's following a pro-life agenda.

I also read Andrew Brown's article in the guardian yesterday. Says that abortions shouldn't be carried out whilst there are infertile women wanting to adopt babies. He speaks from a utilitarian perspective - infertile woman plus baby's life and happiness trumps pregnant woman's wishes. I actually found it quite disgusting to read, but judging by the comments, plenty agree with him. He would have all women with unwanted pregnancies be handmaids.

[kelly2000]

So if a woman cannot get pregnant she has the right to force another woman to remian pregnant despite the risks, which are greater than abortion, so she can get the baby. This despite the fact that there are plenty of children waiting to be adopted, but are not getting adopted because they are not babies or young toddlers, or have siblings etc.

How is it better for a woman's health to undergo an unwanted pregnancy and then give the child away? It is obvious he has not thought about this, and as far as he is concerned it does not matter.

At the end of the day if he manages to get pregnant, then he can have his child adopted.

[limitedperiodonly]

Did he say what would happen in this future world if the infertile woman or her partner was an unsuitable adoptive parent?

Or what might happen to babies not to the taste of all those suitable infertile couples?

Maybe we could set up baby farms with the help of the private sector.

Suppose I could look it up, Guardian website, yeah? And their readers actually thought it was a good idea?

[MyGoldfishIsEvil]

It's here:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/sep/04/nadine-dorries-abortion-bill

Judge for yourself - I warn you though, it doesn't make comfortable reading.